============================== CFJ 2763 ==============================
In an AI 4 proposal, "Change gamestate value X from 'Y' to 'Z'" has
the same meaning as "If gamestate value X is currently 'Y', change
it to 'Z'".
Called by ais523: 20 Feb 2010 17:15:14 GMT
Assigned to scshunt: 21 Feb 2010 05:43:58 GMT
scshunt recused: 27 Feb 2010 00:31:00 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 27 Feb 2010 16:58:03 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy: 06 Mar 2010 16:35:23 GMT
We've been playing as if this were true. However, an AI 4
proposal is powerful enough to create a legal fiction that the old value
of gamestate value X was in fact Y, and this seems to be the literal
meaning of what was written. Where does the convention that changes fail
if the old value was specified incorrectly come from?
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
The convention is presumably generalized from "Amend rule X by replacing
'Y' with 'Z'".
Consider the similar things that such a proposal might be intended to
do, and how each one would most naturally be worded to indicate that
1) Change the value of X to Z, regardless of its previous value
-> ""Change X to Z"
2) Change the value of X to Z, creating legal fiction that it was Y
-> "Ratify that X is Y, then change it to Z"
3) Change the value of X to Z, but only if it was Y
-> "Change X from Y to Z"
The last of these matches the interpretation suggested by the statement.